Select a site alphabetically from the choices shown in the box below. Alternatively, browse sculptural examples using the Forward/Back buttons.
Chapters for this volume, along with copies of original in-text images, are available here.
Object type: Part of cross-shaft [1]
Measurements: H. 96 cm (37.8 in); W. 40.5 > 37.5 cm (16 > 14.7 in); D. 28 > 25 cm (11 > 9.8 in)
Stone type: Sandstone, pale grey, very coarse grained, quartzose and quartz-cemented. Identical to sandstone in the large cross-head Cawthorne (All Saints) 1. Upper Carboniferous, ?local sandstone from the Silkstone Rock, Pennine Lower Coal Measures Group. [G.L.]
Plate numbers in printed volume: Ills. 142–3, 146–7
Corpus volume reference: Vol 8 p. 116-7
(There may be more views or larger images available for this item. Click on the thumbnail image to view.)
A shaft of tapering rectangular section.All faces are edged by roll mouldings.
A (broad): This face also has a fine inner roll moulding. Two-thirds of the surviving face is occupied by a frontal figure, incomplete at the top, where two large hands rest on the creature's belly. The upper part of its body is covered by four versions (two abreast) of the 'D' motif exactly as seen in the arms of the cross-head (Cawthorne 2). Put together like this it looks like a crude version of a lattice-like twist. The lower part of the body is broad and flat and not quite symmetrical. It has lumpy thighs, its legs are 'knock-kneed', its lower legs wide apart, its large five-toed feet returning to point inwards. The space between its legs is filled with further examples of the 'D' motif, and there are two larger examples with double upper and lower borders, separated by a vertical double border, side-by-side beneath its feet. The side mouldings do not return at the bottom, leaving doubt as to whether we have the foot of the shaft.
B (narrow): At the top is a short plain section with below it two versions of the 'D' motif, one occupying the width of the face and with a roll moulding above and below, the second smaller and roughly centred, with a moulding only at the bottom edge. Below this is a longer plain section, then a crudely incised version of the 'D' pattern with two semi-circles against each side and a simple incised border. This fills the width of the shaft. Below this the face is again plain.
C (broad): This face is plain between its mouldings for most of its length, with only a random scattering of 'D' motif semi-circles near the base.
D (narrow): A plain area has below it a centred and incised 'D' pattern; below this again is another plain area; then a squarish panel of incised quadruple or triple straps like a small section of a large interlace; then a third plain area. The base of the shaft has an incomplete double-incised circle quartered by an incised cross: there is a 'D' motif semi-circle in each arc of the circle, and the effect is of a cross of type B9.
The 'D' motif is also found at Ecclesfield and Penistone (Ills. 247, 631), both in the same area of the West Riding and is not found elsewhere: it seems to be evidence of late date, like the crude plait. Innocent (1910, 92–3) believed there were two confronted figures rather than the frontal, flat, bear-like figure seen by Collingwood and Ryder, but one would have to see the figure as more worn than it appears to be, to accept this. Collingwood thought it might be a figure representing death, or perhaps a 'manticora' (strictly a mythical monster with a horned man's head, the body of a lion and the tail of a scorpion), as he also suggested for Dewsbury 6C (Ill. 210) — which I also think has been misinterpreted as a single figure, however (p.139).
The figure does appear bear-like, but in the absence of a head it is difficult to say more. If it is a bear, there must surely be some link with the hogback series, perhaps as an attempt to translate the bear motif into the traditional cross-shaft form, with which this shaft has a rather rough and ready relationship. Cawthorne 1, 2 and perhaps 3 are closely linked to the shaft by the 'D' patterns, but if this shaft is related to the hogback bear the whole group could be of the early tenth century rather than later.
